From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_rapl: Correct hotplug correction
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:08:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140522100820.GE4383@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <537DC6D2.8040305@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:13:46PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 05/22/2014 02:53 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> >
> > So 009f225ef050 ("powercap, intel-rapl: Fix CPU hotplug callback
> > registration") says how get_/put_online_cpus() should be replaced with
> > this cpu_notifier_register_begin/_done().
> >
> > But they're still there so what's up?
> >
>
> Ok, so I retained that because the comments in the code said that
> the caller of rapl_cleanup_data() should hold the hotplug lock.
>
> Here is the snippet from the patch's changelog:
>
> ...
> Fix the intel-rapl code in the powercap driver by using this latter form
> of callback registration. But retain the calls to get/put_online_cpus(),
> since they also protect the function rapl_cleanup_data(). By nesting
> get/put_online_cpus() *inside* cpu_notifier_register_begin/done(), we avoid
> the ABBA deadlock possibility mentioned above.
My bad, I missed that part.
> But looking closer at the code, I think the only requirement is that
> rapl_cleanup_data() should be protected against CPU hotplug, and we
> don't actually need to hold the cpu_hotplug.lock per-se.
What is the difference between "CPU hotplug" and cpu_hotplug.lock?
>From looking at the code those are two different mutexes with
cpu_hotplug.lock, i.e. get_online_cpus() having a preemption point.
And yet, you want to replace get_/put_online_cpus() with
cpu_notifier_register_begin/_done() which is kinda the same thing but
not really. The one protects against hotplug operations and the other
protects against cpu hotplug notifier registration.
Oh, and there's a third one, aliased to the notifier one, which
is "attempting to serialize the updates to cpu_online_mask &
cpu_present_mask."
So why, oh why do we need three? This is absolutely insane. Do we have
at least one sensible reason why cpu hotplug users should need to know
all that gunk?
> cpu_notifier_register_begin()/end() also provide equivalent protection
> against CPU hotplug. So we should be able to remove the get/put_online_cpus()
> from intel-rapl driver.
Btw, rapl_exit() has both calls too :-\.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-22 10:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-22 9:23 [PATCH] intel_rapl: Correct hotplug correction Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 9:43 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-22 10:08 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2014-05-22 11:54 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-22 12:13 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 12:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-22 15:30 ` [PATCH] x86, MCE: Kill CPU_POST_DEAD Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 15:50 ` Luck, Tony
2014-05-22 19:55 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 21:13 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-22 21:31 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 21:40 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-22 21:43 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2014-05-26 20:01 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-05-22 21:31 ` [PATCH] intel_rapl: Correct hotplug correction Srivatsa S. Bhat
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140522100820.GE4383@pd.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.